Be aware that "advertisement" here is in the legalese sense.
I.e. this is less about "ad" advertisements but more about e.g. doctors having flyers better informing about what is possible/legal in the waiting room and similar.
Like before you basically had to "somehow magically know" who could do an abortion as even mentioning it on the doctors (hospitals) website might be counted as advertisement.
> Like before you basically had to "somehow magically know" who could do an abortion
There is nothing magical about this. There are lists for this, from official sites, from NGOs, from health centers. The major difference this law made, was that you were only allowed to passively inform about this stuff. Now it will be allowed to be more actively.
That makes more sense: billboard advertisement would go too far as it would encourage otherwise unwarranted behavior (similar to smoking : if you see someone cool doing it you might consider it, without any prior motivation)
You'd show it as an easily accessible alternative, potentially reducing the strict use of contraceptives. And overall that would have worse consequences than preventing pregnancy in the first place.
People being imperfect is why you are required to go through a consulting session and then have to wait 3(?) days to think about it.
(which is one of the weaknesses of the law as the state could cause an situation where getting the consulting is practically unlikely by withholding accreditation, but this is currently not the case at all as far as I know. Through this is if I remember correctly why pro-choice advocates had been against such approaches as at least some republican states can be expected to do exactly that, as it has shown in some other contexts)
Anyway this is NOT a reason to massively constraint the freedom and choice about their own body of a woman. Especially if it might threaten their live. And yes some republican states abortion laws (which are now in effect again I think) do in-practice even prevent abortions all the time which are necessary for the health of the mother, even in cases where there is no or hardly any choice for a child to be born alive even when the mother spends most here time in intensive care of doctors (which most people can't afford anyway)).
And if anything is clear then that a lot of republicans (of which have influence) want to make abortion impossible, partially by law and partially by making it practically impossible in 9 out of 10 cases where it is allowed by law (and wanted).
Lastly you could do the same argument for:
- driving cars, idiots driving car kill a _lot_ of people, including children every year (well more like week)
- having anything weaponizeable from large knives to guns, the amount of children dying because of idiots mishandling guns isn't that small either
- etc. etc.
- also for the ridiculousness: Idiots rising children kill them all the time, too. So surely you should take children away from any adult which isn't socially well established.y
EDIT: Oh forgot the most important part, just because someone is a idiot they shouldn't have less rights.
I think I didn't express myself clearly enough. I don't think anyone should be deprived of its rights, just because they are an idiot. Even idiots should be allowed to do idiotic things, unless they do the harm to other individuals.
I was just referring to the parent comment that "women are not idiots" which is false. All people can be idiots, regardless of gender. My comment that you replied to was also idiotic, since I clearly didn't express myself clear enough.
"Women are not idiots" is not "no woman is an idiot". Obviously there are idiot people of any gender, the point is that women collectively are not idiots.
The German constitution still views abortion as unjust towards the aborted child in any case. That doesn't mean it is an illegal practice. While the conservative party indeed has the name christian in their name, abortion never was a religious debate in Germany. Hell, I don't think neither is it in the US really. Sure, fundamentalists will reject it, but this isn't too relevant to overall opposition. Maybe I am wrong here, but it doesn't look like it at all.
German court declared so half a century ago, but a quick look at the source ("(2) Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity") shows that this is not true - the only way one can conflict with the other is under assumption of catholic shibboleth of "life from conception", ie the theory that zygote is a person.
Germany may be a bit behind here but the point at which a fetus transforms into a human isn't too relevant at first. Formally all abortions are unjust towards the (potential) person, no matter how early or late the abortion happens.
The question of when human lives begins can be a religious argument but it may as well be not. In the same vein the valuation of human life to be precious is either religious or ideological as well.
> Are contraceptives unjust towards the potential person too?
No, the line is drawn after that. It isn't my line either, just how the law sees it. You could argue this to be bad or not, some women complain that the bureaucracy around it made them feel like criminals but others argue that this is normal for German bureaucracy.
> Sure - and in this case the court silently assumed the Catholic ideology.
And probably protestant and orthodox Christians too. As well as Jews, Buddhists, Hindu and some others. While religion is a good predictor, the reasoning not necessarily is and there are also secular people against abortion as well. I think the court reasoned with a technicality of the law, but I am no expert.
The line is drawn where it is because of false assumption based purely on Catholic mythology. Does German law prohibit revisiting past verdicts?
>And probably protestant and orthodox Christians too. As well as Jews, Buddhists, Hindu and some others.
To many protestants, Jews, Buddhists and Hindu the idea of "life from conception" is no different from what the idea of sacred cows is to Christians.
>there are also secular people against abortion as well.
There are also secular people against vaccines. There are no valid, non-religious arguments for "life from conception", it's just a superstition invented by a certain religion.
Wrong or not, it is simply not true that these considerations are specifically based on catholic faith. I believe that is a primitive image of a fictitious enemy.
So your response to a decision that can only be explained by the court assuming a logical fallacy invented by Catholics is that "it's simply not true"? :-D
Medical science has recognized the distinction between the gender identity one feels comfortable with, and the biological sex one is born with for a long time now. Time already marched on, my friend.
Can you show any evidence that people knowing they can get an abortion and where, leads to reduced contraception usage?
Actually… next time you’re close to sleeping with someone, say “hey, you can just get an abortion, we don’t need to use a condom”. Tell me what she says.
Evidence, no, that's why I wrote "potentially". This idea is extrapolated from something that already happens though - if people know plan B is easily accessible, they're not as regular with taking a daily pill as they'd be otherwise. Even though in practice that means higher risks. This I heard directly - don't know if there's any study.
The whole idea is not about making a conscious, calculated choice. It's about how comfortable you become with certain risk. It's on the same level as: if we start advertising how safe airbags are, would we see the average speed get a tiny increase nationally.
No people to it if plan be is _easy_ not easily accessible.
Abortion is _never_ easy.
Even if it is easy accessible.
It's such a typical "I have no idea about the topic but insist on pretending I do argument".
Also we did advertise how safe airbacks are in the past, it didn't make people drive more reckless as people generally do not balance risks and gains when they decide to drive fast.
It's bs like saying because there is a hospital close by you are less care full with taking you heart medicine.
> if people know plan B is easily accessible, they're not as regular with taking a daily pill as they'd be otherwise
I would like to know where this belief comes from. Discussing this change of law like this, with vague anecdotes and fears, is outright dangerous, since the argument is essentially against giving people appropriate medical information.
> I would like to know where this belief comes from.
In this case, from personally having conversations with two women who essentially said "I forgot the pill that day, but had sex anyway and got plan B in the morning".
Also the context in this subthread is about commercial advertising and the impression of "cool", not about medical information. Completely separate ideas.
Abortion has never been advertised as “cool”, anywhere in the world, so I don’t know why that’s where your head goes. Women aren’t idiots - they are, usually, informed about their options, a heck of a lot more than the men fucking them are.
People have always forgotten to take any pill they have to take regularly. Plan B gives people an option they didn’t have before when that happens. There’s no evidence there that Plan B causes people to take the pill less regularly.
We’ve had billboards about keeping high-vis jackets in cars and wearing them in dangerous situations. It never made them, or having car accidents, cool in any way. The “speculation in this thread” is just that, baseless speculation and unfounded gut feelings.
> In this case, from personally having conversations with two women who essentially said "I forgot the pill that day, but had sex anyway and got plan B in the morning".
Plan B, in this case the morning after pill, is a different beast from what we usually discuss when talking about abortion. There are no real negative consequences when taking it (even more so when compared with contraception pills) so I am not sure why you are so afraid.
IUDs are much better than pills anyway, and you can forget about them without issue. They also don’t cause hormone-related problems. If you are serious about your argument, you should advocate for this sort of device (and also abortion, because even if they are generally reliable, 0% risk does not exist).
> Also the context in this subthread is about commercial advertising and the impression of "cool", not about medical information.
That is a misunderstanding of the law in question, for which “advertising” means “making people aware of it”, and does include things like what is put on a doctor’s website and any document they distribute.
>> Plan B, in this case the morning after pill, is a different beast from what we usually discuss when talking about abortion.
Well, it might be a different cast for you, today. But the people writing laws in conservative states don't see it that way. Many of them are looking to ban anything that stop pregnancy after sex, specifically including plan B pills. A few extremists are even talking about going after contraception too. It isn't about scientific definitions. It is about increasing the risk of pregnancy in order to dissuade young people from having sex.
This was a really weird take to begin with. I.e. I feel like the courts were a lot broader in the ways they defined „Werbung“ for abortions than Werbung for other areas.
Still banned in Germany: ads for lawyers, ads for doctors, ads for cigarettes, ads for gambling, and ads for drugs that need a prescription.
When traveling to the US, it always strikes me how different public ads are. The US has more public ads and also much more aggressive ads. An ad for an injury lawyer would be unthinkable in Europa.
In Germany, political TV ads are technically banned, but every party in the running gets allocated a slot after the evening news on the main public channel. This can be pretty funny, as sometimes, even very "amateurish" spots by very small parties end up on national TV.
It's not true that doctors can't advertise, there are just restrictions of the type of advertisement they can do. There are e.g. many online portals that list doctors with their specific services and contain appraisals by customers. It would just not be allowed for the doctor to do such kind of appraisals ("I'm the greatest dentist in Berlin") by themselves.
In any case it's hardly an issue for them as most doctors are fully booked for months, so they rarely need to advertise their services. Companies like Doctolib therefore aim more at optimizing the booking process to e.g. ensure that canceled bookings get backfilled automatically to increase the overall booking rate, though even that is usually not a problem and most doctors overbook their appointments to make sure they stay busy during the day (that's why you often have to wait 30-60 minutes here even if you have an appointment scheduled).
When did this happen? When I was in Munich a few years back there were poster ads for cigarettes everywhere. I remember them being not very subtle about their “smoking is cool” message.
Tobacco ads are generally banned on Radio, TV, Print and the Web with some exceptions. Outdoor advertising is still very much allowed, Germany is the only EU country that allows this.
Btw manufacturers (not the merchants though) are still allowed to hand out free cigarettes.
I think there is some rule that the cigarette ads need to be targeted to smokers and not to non-smokers. As in Marlboro can try to make ads to convince Gauloises smokers to buy Marlboro on their next purchase instead of their usual brand but wouldn’t be allowed to make ads for non smokers to get hooked. (As if it would work That way)
Ads for cigarettes have been banned in Europe for a long time, thats why there is zero tobacco in Formula 1. In Denmark its now illegal to show the tobacco in the store, it has to be hidden
True in the UK too. Cigarette adverts were banned forever ago. Then they stopped displaying them in the store. Now, if I'm not mistaken (I don't smoke), they don't even display branding on the packets - the packets have a very plain, uniform design with no flashy colours or logos.
This isn't the same kind of advertising and isn't comparable. For most drugs (i.e. until now, non-abortificants) there's few restrictions on what information doctors are allowed to display in their offices, for example. Cigarette packaging is still prominently displayed in stores.
In the UK, injury lawyers seem to be allowed (but only those lawyers, I don't recall seeing a general lawyer advert, though I don't think they're explicitly banned). But maybe I just don't watch enough TV.
In fact, they make up a significant percentage of adverts!
Ads for hand weapons? You mean like 9mm pistols and such? Why? That would be pointless for the advertiser (not to mention distasteful). German gun control laws are quite strict:
Owning a gun for self-defence is only allowed in rare cases like security personnel and politicians whose lives are threatened. The normal allowed categories are hunting, sports, and collectors, but even then you need a licence (with a few minor exceptions like flint-lock rifles and flare guns).
> I also haven't seen ads for hand weapons. Are they illegal in Germany, too?
I'm not sure about a ban (I guess there is, though) but since gun ownership is restricted the market is quite small. Outside of narrow targeted ads (say in gun owner magazines) it'd be a waste of money.
Not a very convincing article, since it presents some statistics about the US (e.g. "only 10% of injured Americans ever file a claim for compensation and only 2% file lawsuits") but does not compare them to other countries, so we can't tell whether the US is more or less litigious than the rest of the world.
The US has more "agressive" ads than Germany, because in Germany exists law against such agressiveness. For instance, you are not allowed to put down a competitor, not even mention their products.
> For instance, you are not allowed to [...] even mention [a competitor's] products.
This is directly refuted by the section of legal code that you linked. The phrasing in there (translated in German) is along the lines of "Mentioning a competitor's product is unfair advertising if [specific catalog of unfair situations]". The list includes things like "comparing products intended for different purposes and functions" or "comparing products by qualities that are not objectively measurable".
I'm not saying that you will not be walking on thin ice if you engage in comparative advertising. In fact, if you target a particularly litigous competitor, you may have a bad time even if you're within your rights, but to say that comparative advertising is flat out illegal is not backed up by the phrasing of the law as presented in your source.
22.4% in 2017, and dropping. Similar to the Netherlands. All measures taken together — public knowledge of the harm smoking causes, banning of advertising and gradual reduction of places you can buy it, age limits, banning of smoking in offices and various public areas — undeniably help.
That's what advertising is, literally, not in the commercial sense where you blast people on TV etc. to convince them they need your product/service.
In the past it wasn't even allowed to advertise on your website that you do abortions, or have more information on it in your waiting room, so patients had to actively ask if you offer it.
Probably? This process started at the end of 2021 [1] why didn't you take a few minutes to do some research instead of throwing out an incorrect theory with no evidence.
This change has been in the works for a while, certainly longer than the leaked draft of the US Supreme Court decision. The timing is purely accidental.
This was a well-known issue that interfered with doctors providing neutral information about abortions. Once the government switched to the current coalition of social democrats, greens and liberal democrats this change was put into motion. This happened simply because conservatives are not in power right now in the federal government here.
This is dystopic. I'm not anti-abortion but I can't think of one reason that promoting abortion is a "good move" to make a better society. We all know that ads work. Abortion should be a (legal) last resort solution and we already know that we have that option.
No no no! Don't trust the "advertisement" translation of the NYT, this is german law legalese!
"Werbung" does mean (a promoting) advertisement, but "Werbung" in the sense of the law can also mean any mention of something at all if you perform the same something, e.g. you are a doc and peform abortions => if you mention abortions (the word alone is already enough!), it's technically "Werbung" in the sense of the law.
It is information about accessing a medical procedure. It isnt as if millions of women are suddenly going to realize that abortions exist and rush out to get them who otherwise would not. It just might make things a little simpler for those who were already looking for the proceedure. Women dont make such life choices according to convenience.
The proposal was a bit more complex to care for the outcome you are probably worrying about. They extended another law that forbids misleading advertisement for pharmaceuticals and medical procedures to also cover abortions.
The situation before the change was that everyone could publish any information's , true or false, about abortions except doctors and clinics. Now misleading information's are prohibited and doctors are alowed to inform about abortions and publicise that they perform the procedure.
German doctors weren’t allowed to list terminations as one of their services, nor even write posts on their websites giving factual information about abortion, which you’d know if you’d read the article.
The definition of “promotion” here is bad enough that simply listing abortion as a provided service at a clinic would be illegal.
We do not know who provides these services, because they’re not allowed to tell us they provide these services.
Nobody is about to go get an ad campaign on TV telling women to get abortions here now, buy one get one free. That’s not how the medical system here works.
To clarify... This is at least partially the aftermath of a lawsuite if I recall correctly.
There was a case where a doctor listed abortions as one of their offerings on their website, and that was seen as an advertisement. [Citation needed, my memory might fail me here]
So "no advertisement" pretty much means "don't tell anyone anywhere beforehand".
And that was seen as non-helpful, especially as abortions are legal in Germany.
> And that was seen as non-helpful, especially as abortions are legal in Germany.
Nope, the criminal code forbids abortion, but doesn't punish it in some circumstance (within some months of pregnancy, after a counselling session and some time for thinking it over etc.)
There are huge debates to make it more legal by turning this around or clearer restricting in criminal code.
§218a lists that it is not a crime under certain circumstances ("Tatbestand des § 218 ist nicht verwirklicht, wenn"), but the heading of that one is "Straflosigkeit", so "no punishment".
IANAL but this reads like it is not a crime under the listed conditions. Which is different from no punishment.
Yes, that's what brought it back into the spotlight. The parties currently in the government all somewhat ran on the promise of overturning this law as a part of a general modernization (the more conservative party, which is now out, blocked a lot of it).
The important part is §218a which declares the situations in which abortion is legal. This is not something like prosecutorial discretion, it's still a matter of law.
Most notable: "The pregnant woman does not incur the penalty specified in section 218 if the termination was performed by a physician after counselling (section 219) and no more than 22 weeks have elapsed since conception"
As a person living in Berlin and helping someone through it recently here. This is plain armchair analysis. Have you ever actually gone through this in Germany???
It's COVERED in public health insurance. Get the letter (from public health insurance), get the family counseling (which is provided by the senate, and unlike what people think, is informative and gives surgical and grief counseling with info sheets), let it sink in for 3 days, then go through it with a gynecologist. It should be completed before 12 weeks.
These are services offered, paid and staffed by the government (even the public health insurers).
To compare it to private "smart shops" in Netherlands is stupid.
It's a little more precise than that. It's illegal but also formally has no penalty for a variety of cases.
Ending the "advertising" ban is a great step forward in letting people actually access doctors' services. Legalization seems unlikely, unfortunately, though the news around Dobbs has at least opened up the discussion again.
People need to realize that “woman who might need an abortion” is not necessarily a healthy 16-18 year old with poor impulse control but is also likely to be a married, working mother of 3 barely keeping up with mortgage payments who wasn’t told that the antibiotic for her sinus infection could make her birth control pills ineffective, or a woman with a dearly wanted pregnancy that is now causing her to bleed and have a weird pain on one side, or a 12-year-old girl who didn’t understand what her big brother’s buddy was doing to her.
Happy to see the country I live in overturning that Nazi law that aimed to produce more Aryan babies in favor of acknowledging that women are rational beings. The counseling restriction is still infantilizing, but at least you have a lot of discretion in which organization you get it from - ProFamilia allows that you have better knowledge of your life than they do and have made your own decision, and will just help you implement it.
I am angry and hurt by the place I'm from and still have most of my family, because a situation that was handled rationally and kindly in Germany (an ectopic pregnancy - no “counseling session” aside from a doctor at the hospital factually advising me of my medical options) would make me hesitant to even go to the emergency room in Texas. No one really knows that they have an ectopic pregnancy until an actual doctor examines them, and the only treatment option is which manner of termination you and the doctor choose. Otherwise, it’s probably a normal miscarriage, which is treated with painkillers and encouragement to try again in a few months in reasonable places, but looks to be a legal risk in Texas.
If you're bent on arguing this from first principals, rather than a nuanced discussion about the quality of life of an unwanted child, remember that parents are not obligated at any other point to give up parts of their own body for their "child". It is only during a pregnancy where a woman is obligated to provide nutrients directly from her bloodstream. This is a "right" that the child, once born, no longer has - even if the child needs it to survive, the parents are under no obligation to donate blood or organs.
Doesn't it logically have to go to first principals? If we're talking about quality of life of unwanted children, why not allow people to abort their children post birth, say 3 or even 12 years into its life?
No, because in that case there are other options. A 3-year old child can be put up for adoption if the parents are unable to provide adequate care for it. At our current medical level of progress, doing the same for a 3-week-old embryo is impossible.
If it were possible to transplant embryos instead of aborting the pregnancy, the moral argument around abortions would look very different.
Edit note: I initially mistyped "put up for adoption" as "put up for abortion". This has since been fixed.
Why do other options have anything to do with it? So far as I've observed, policy makers in the US are pushing for abortion up until birth.
We will soon have the tech to grow children in artifical wombs from conception. Why does self sufficiency define the cutoff for murder when it is time variant, and the child will necessarily grow the ability to live untethered?
Thing is, the “child” here is purely imaginary. It’s a fringe theory, proven to be wrong not only by secular ethicists and most religions, but even Acquinas himself. It’s not any different from anti vax or flat earth.
Are you suggesting a fetus that is 20 weeks is not a child? It has brain waves, a heartbeat, different DNA from the mother, perhaps different chromosomes than the mother, legs, arms, etc.
I’m suggesting it doesn’t matter, because even if it was an adult human, it still wouldn’t override other persons right to decide about their own body. Starting this discussion with an argument that attempts to derail it is very telling.
Also, honestly, the "life from conception" is fringe even from Christian theology point of view. It was debunked by Acquinas himself, most of Christianity believes it's bullshit, which also used to be the opinion shared by Catholic Church until XIX century.
First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities. Providing sustenance to a fetus is the necessities. This is up to debate, but is not as simple as you are making it out to be.
Second, Aquinas was wrong on multiple things according to the Catholic Church. No Catholic believes Aquinas was infallible.
Thirdly, you are also (intentionally?) misinterpreting Aquinas. He did not believe ensoulment happened until later in the pregnancy, but was opposed to abortion at any stage because it violated natural law.
Fourth, most of Christianity does not believe it is bullshit since the majority of Christians are Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, etc and appear to be in line with their Churches teachings. Maybe you mean the majority of American Christians? If that is what you mean, who cares? It doesn't even matter if it is the majority of Christians in the world. Christianity (well the denominations most Christians are in) are not democracies.
Fifth, it doesn't really matter if Christians agree or disagree with abortion. You can easily argue against abortion through purely secular arguments. Funny how proabortion people are always the first to bring up religion.
>First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities.
Nope. If your relative needs a kidney you aren’t forced by law to donate it. Yet you require pregnant people to donate their bodies. Why?
>You can easily argue against abortion through purely secular arguments.
You cannot. There are no valid arguments against availability of abortion other than religious ones. The ones pretending to be are either based on logical fallacies, or are aimed at derailing the discussion - like your own attempt couple of comments above. Once again: supporting abortion ban is no different from antivax. We just pretend it isn’t because of political correctness - because this particular fringe theory is supported by major religion.
>Nope. If your relative needs a kidney you aren’t forced by law to donate it. Yet you require pregnant people to donate their bodies. Why
A kidney is not the basic needs that you are obligated to provide. The basic needs that one is obligated to provide are food, water, and shelter.
Donating a kidney goes above and beyond the basic needs. It may be a good thing to do though, but it is above and beyond your obligations.
The purpose of your kidney is to support your own body. The purpose of a uterus is to support the baby.
I would also say that parents have a stronger obligation to their children than strangers or relatives that are further than your children.
Another thing to keep in mind is donating a kidney is permanent. You don't get your kidney back.
>You cannot. There are no valid arguments against availability of abortion other than religious ones.
Fundamentally untrue. A good resource to learn about this is Secular Prolife. [1]
>The ones pretending to be are either based on logical fallacies, or are aimed at derailing the discussion - like your own attempt couple of comments above.
Your comment of comparing a kidney and a uterus is derailing the conversion.
Your comments about religion is derailing the topic. Prochoicers are always the first to being religion into the abortion conversation.
>Once again: supporting abortion ban is no different from antivax.
Funny how many of the people who accuse others of being antivax are pro vaccine mandate, which could easily be considered a violation of bodily autonomy.
Bringing antivax into the conversation is yet another derailing attempt by you.
> We just pretend it isn’t because of political correctness - because this particular fringe theory is supported by major religion.
Like I said above. You are just wrong. There are millions of nonreligious prolifers. Just because you are ignorant of that fact doesn't mean you are correct.
I assume you didn't mean to say just because this issue is "supported" by religions that makes it a religious issue. If so, then are you an advocate of removing murder, theft, rape, etc laws? Religions do support those after all.
So because women have a uterus and the purpose of a uterus is to support a baby, once a baby is in the uterus a woman is required to carry it to live birth? I'm sorry if I'm not reading this charitably, but I find this argument to be abhorrent.
> Another thing to keep in mind is donating a kidney is permanent. You don't get your kidney back.
Unless there are complications? My great state of Texas, which will ban abortion, was found to have a severe maternal morbidity rate of 1.97%[0] while this study I found taken Iran gives a 1.5% rate for severe complications for live donors in a kidney transplantation[1].
> The basic needs that one is obligated to provide are food, water, and shelter.
Once a baby is born, you are not obligated to provide food, water, and shelter. You have the option to give the baby (or child) up for adoption. When you remove a woman's option for abortion, you put an obligation on her that is greater than her obligation at any point after the child is born and is greater than the obligation a father has to the child at any point in their lifetime.
I guess this is fine though, because those uteruses are for babys after all...
>So because women have a uterus and the purpose of a uterus is to support a baby, once a baby is in the uterus a woman is required to carry it to live birth?
I am saying the purpose of a uterus is not the same as other organs. I wouldn't use this argument to argue against abortion, strictly against your comparison of forced organ donation.
>Unless there are complications? My great state of Texas, which will ban abortion, was found to have a severe maternal morbidity rate of 1.97%[0] while this study I found taken Iran gives a 1.5% rate for severe complications for live donors in a kidney transplantation
As far as I know if there is a complication they don't remove the kidney after transplant and return it to the person donating the organ. Correct me if I am wrong?
If you donate your kidney it is gone forever. If a fetus uses the uterus it will be gone in less than a year.
I'm confused what the percentages are for? I think you are reading into what I am saying more than you should.
>Once a baby is born, you are not obligated to provide food, water, and shelter. You have the option to give the baby (or child) up for adoption. When you remove a woman's option for abortion, you put an obligation on her that is greater than her obligation at any point after the child is born and is greater than the obligation a father has to the child at any point in their lifetime.
You are misunderstanding what I am saying. You are required to either provide directly or find somebody else who can. What you cannot do is leave your born baby outside to die or stab it to death or whatever.
When it comes to pregnancy with the current technology you cannot find somebody else to care for the baby and as such you must provide the care yourself.
This is the same situation as born children. As far as I know every state allows you to drop a baby at a fire station, but imagine a scenario where you couldn't. There are no orphanages and nobody will take your child. Are you allowed to kill the child? Of course not. If you are unable to get anybody to help provide for your child you have no right to kill it.
In a few years artificial wombs will be available and it will change things. People could choose to remove the baby and have it grow in the womb. Somebody else could then be responsible. Until that time comes you have an obligation to provide for your children until an alternative provider can be found.
>A kidney is not the basic needs that you are obligated to provide.
A forced kidney transplant is an example of denying someone the right to decide about their own body. It's the exact same situation as forced pregnancy: you're arguing that someone's personal freedom should be violated because of somebody else's religious superstition.
>Fundamentally untrue. A good resource to learn about this is Secular Prolife.
And a good resource to learn about vaccines is Breitbart?
>There are millions of nonreligious prolifers.
There are millions of anti-vaxers. Just because many people believe in silly things doesn't mean they are correct.
Also, this issue isn't "supported by religions". This issue is pretty much specific to one particular branch of Christianity, the one most famous for raping children and for being so wrong they had to make own infallibility an official dogma. But again, I'm not going to teach you history to explain why Roman Catholic Church is a parody of Christianity, because it doesn't matter, same reason the question of why life begins doesn't matter to this discussion. What does matter is you're condoning stripping people of their fundamental human rights.
>A forced kidney transplant is an example of denying someone the right to decide about their own body. It's the exact same situation as forced pregnancy
It is not. Please see my post to the other person who responded to my comment.
>you're arguing that someone's personal freedom should be violated because of somebody else's religious superstition.
It is amazing how the first people to bring up religion are always the prochociers. There are millions of nonreligious prolifers, but you just attempt to smear them with accusations. Please don't assume the reasons people support or don't support various issues. It is arguing in bad faith and makes you look bad.
>And a good resource to learn about vaccines is Breitbart
Have I posted anything about vaccines from Brietbart before? I think you may be confusing me with somebody else? If you are trying to say Secular Prolife is equivalent to Brietbart than you haven't read them both.
>There are millions of anti-vaxers. Just because many people believe in silly things doesn't mean they are correct
What do you mean by correct? Are you suggesting that every nonreligious person must believe the same thing?
>Also, this issue isn't "supported by religions".
Sure it is.
>This issue is pretty much specific to one particular branch of Christianity,
Just factually untrue.
1. Catholic
2. Eastern Orthodox
3. Oriental Orthodox
4. Assyrian Church of the East
5. Ancient Church of the East
6. Some Protestant denominations
7. Mennonites
And huge amount more than that.
Even some groups that may or may not be Christians
1. Mormons
2. Jehovah's Witnesses
Now in terms of other religions there is some debate in them, but many of the followers in these think it is opposed to their religion:
1. Sikhism
2. Islam
3. Judaism
And more.
>the one most famous for raping children and for being so wrong they had to make own infallibility an official dogma. But again, I'm not going to teach you history to explain why Roman Catholic Church is a parody of Christianity
Please do not derail the conversation. There are over a billion Catholics so please cool it with the bigotry.
>same reason the question of why life begins doesn't matter to this discussion.
I agree why life begins is irrelevant to this conversation. When it begins is the only thing that matters.
>What does matter is you're condoning stripping people of their fundamental human rights.
That is rich coming from the person who supports stripping a human from it's fundamental right to not be killed.
>Please see my post to the other person who responded to my comment.
Your reasoning there is based on assumption that "the purpose of a uterus is to support the baby", which is... well, apart from being absurd, it's also yet another attempt at derailing the discussion; your idea about intended purpose of body parts is not relevant to anyone's bodily freedom. It applies equally to all body parts.
>1. Catholic 2. Eastern Orthodox 3. Oriental Orthodox 4. Assyrian Church of the East 5. Ancient Church of the East 6. Some Protestant denominations 7. Mennonites
All of which belong to the same branch of a single religion, like I said above.
>There are over a billion Catholics so please cool it with the bigotry.
What you have in mind is called "political correctness", and recent events prove that there's been way too much political correctness towards religiously-motivated social pathologies.
>When it begins is the only thing that matters.
You still hadn't answered to the proof that it isn't - unless you want to argue that someone's religious superstition is more important than fundamental human rights.
>That is rich coming from the person who supports stripping a human from it's fundamental right
Not human - a zygote. Humans have minds, that what makes us humans. Zygotes, like cadavers, provably don't.
>Your reasoning there is based on assumption that "the purpose of a uterus is to support the baby", which is... well, apart from being absurd, it's also yet another attempt at derailing the discussion; your idea about intended purpose of body parts is not relevant to anyone's bodily freedom. It applies equally to all body parts.
I do not think it is comparable to organ donation. I do think you are required to provide the basic necessities, but are not obligated to go beyond. Due to our limitations with artificial wombs and fetus transplants it is not possible to provide the basics without carrying the pregnancy.
>All of which belong to the same branch of a single religion, like I said above.
Those are not the same branch of the same religion. It is mighty convenient that you left off all the other branches along with different religions I mentioned.
>What you have in mind is called "political correctness", and recent events prove that there's been way too much political correctness towards religiously-motivated social pathologies.
I don't really care if you are PC in general. HN, however, is supposed to be a civil place. Bigotry like what you spewed isn't in keeping with the guidelines.
>You still hadn't answered to the proof that it isn't - unless you want to argue that someone's religious superstition is more important than fundamental human rights.
If you can't stop bringing up religion there is no point in continuing. This has nothing to do with religion. There is good biological evidence life starts at conception.
Here are some resources which contain biologists and biology text books.
>Not human - a zygote. Humans have minds, that what makes us humans. Zygotes, like cadavers, provably don't
Toddlers don't have fully formed minds. They only have a minimal level of sentience and consciousness. I am concluding that toddlers are not humans. Great reasoning there.
>I do not think it is comparable to organ donation.
Yet you can't point out the difference.
>HN, however, is supposed to be a civil place.
And so we should pretend that flat earth, anti-vax, and life from conception are all valid worldviews that deserve respect?
>This has nothing to do with religion.
This has everything to do with religion, because this particular fallacy was invented by one particular religion. Notably, you still hadn't shown a single non-religious argument; instead you're now looping repeating something that's already been shown to be irrelevant ("good biological evidence").
>Toddlers don't have fully formed minds.
Sure, but they _could_. While in case of fetuses and cadavers we can easily prove this is not the case.
The purpose of a uterus is not the same as other organs. The purpose of your regular organs is to support your body. The purpose of a uterus is to support the fetus. If a woman didn't bear children she wouldn't have a uterus.
>And so we should pretend that flat earth, anti-vax, and life from conception are all valid worldviews that deserve respect?
I don't think you need to consider a view valid to show the person (not the view) making it respect.
>This has everything to do with religion, because this particular fallacy was invented by one particular religion. Notably, you still hadn't shown a single non-religious argument; instead you're now looping repeating something that's already been shown to be irrelevant ("good biological evidence").
You are the one repeating. Nobody is talking about religion except for you.
So long as you can't stop bring up religion there is no point in continuing.
>Sure, but they _could_. While in case of fetuses and cadavers we can easily prove this is not the case.
A toddler does not have a fully formed brain. The brain does not fully form until the person is in their 20s.
Fetuses have brain waves. Some of the brain waves look similar to brain waves during dreams. That is not to say the fetus is in fact dreaming, but it _could_ be.
I never said coordinated brain activity but brain waves. You also only addressed (though incorrectly) one of my points. What about the heart beats? Is that also after 20 weeks? I'll give you a hint, it is well before 20 weeks.
Regardless, there is distinct DNA from the mother and as such it is distinct from the mother. It is growing and has human DNA. It is as simple as that.
Who cares about heartbeat? It's not cardiovascular system that makes us humans; it's our minds. When we declare someone clinically dead we measure their brain activity, not heartbeat. Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case?
>there is distinct DNA
There is a distinct DNA in a hydatidiform mole; it's growing and has human DNA. Does that make it a baby?
See, this argument of yours depends on one's lack of understanding of biology. It makes sense to a high schooler, but is immediately absurd to eg a nurse.
>Who cares about heartbeat? It's not cardiovascular system that makes us humans; it's our minds.
Are people in a comma not human? Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person?
>When we declare someone clinically dead we measure their brain activity, not heartbeat. Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case?
We have the term brain dead for a reason. It is distinct from the body being dead.
Do you believe people who are brain dead but "wake up" actually come back to life?
It is also different since we know, barring a medical issue (or an abortion) the baby will continue to grow and have a regular brain.
>There is a distinct DNA in a hydatidiform mole; it's growing and has human DNA. Does that make it a baby?
I don't know about this specific condition, so if it is strictly a genetic condition than I think it is a human.
I would say that humans are humans even if they have a fatal genetic condition. I don't think the medical situation of a person determines if somebody is a human.
>See, this argument of yours depends on one's lack of understanding of biology. It makes sense to a high schooler, but is immediately absurd to eg a nurse.
If that is the case then why do so many reputable biological text books and biologists state life begins at conception?
People in coma do have brain activity. People who don't aren't "less human", they are clinically dead.
>so if it [hydatidiform mole] is strictly a genetic condition than I think it is a human.
xD
>If that is the case then why do so many reputable biological text books and biologists state life begins at conception?
Because in the biological context this is true. However, your whole reasoning is based on reusing this in a completely different context, wrongly assuming that every bit of homo sapiens, regardless of its state, is a person. That's why its absurdity would be obvious to a nurse: it's obvious to anyone who knows about both contexts and thus can tell the difference between them.
>People in coma do have brain activity. People who don't aren't "less human", they are clinically dead.
And fetuses have some level of brain activity as well.
A fetus has some level of brain waves at 7 weeks. Does that mean you think a fetus is alive after that time period, but not alive before?
Since you didn't reply to everything, I will ask again: Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person?
>xD
I don't know what this means. Like I said I don't know about that specific condition.
>Because in the biological context this is true. However, your whole reasoning is based on reusing this in a completely different context
To quote you: "Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case?"
>wrongly assuming that every bit of homo sapiens, regardless of its state, is a person. That's why its absurdity would be obvious to a nurse: it's obvious to anyone who knows about both contexts and thus can tell the difference between them.
I don't think every part is human. Skin cells are not human. I agree that would be a ridiculous point to make. Good thing I am not making it
>And fetuses have some level of brain activity as well.
Not really, that's the point.
>Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person?
Severe mental disabilities such as completely missing brain?
>To quote you: "Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case?"
Because otherwise you'll arrive at conclusion that a hydatidiform mole (look, I'm repeating this exact keyword for the fourth time here as a gentle suggestion for you to type it into Wikipedia) is a human.
It is so long as you define a human as having a certain level of brain activity.
>Severe mental disabilities such as completely missing brain?
I mean severe autism or something like that.
>Because otherwise you'll arrive at conclusion that a hydatidiform mole (look, I'm repeating this exact keyword for the fourth time here as a gentle suggestion for you to type it into Wikipedia) is a human.
I looked into it a bit.
First, it is quite dangerous for the woman so removing it would be acceptable in every state. I don't have an issue with this.
Second, some of the situations there is no embryo tissue. I don't have a problem calling it dead in this case.
Third, I am not sure about a partial one. I think it is a malformed human, but I am not really knowledgeable about this. Just because somebody has a chromosomal issue doesn't mean they are not human. Down syndrome people have chromosomal issues but are still humans. Just because there is a difference in viable doesn't change the humanness of the person. You may have justification to remove it from the uterus to protect the mother though.
Your reply reminded me of a quote about Americans attributed to various people, including Churchill: You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility.
"A healthy dose of pragmatism would make this lovely country... "perfect" :) "
Ah well, I think there are quite some other traits missing and there is too much stiffness. I am curious if the upcoming legalisation of weed will help, or not.
Banning abortion is typical for authoritarian regimes - Hitler, Stalin, Catholic extremists all banned abortion, and for the same reason: to turn citizens into cattle.
"advertise" in this context is not about Billboards ("pay one abortion, get a second free!") but about doctors putting information on the procedures and about the fact the offer abortion on flyers and their website. Before this law was changed people seeking and abortion had to ask whether they do such procedures or know some doctor who does.
I.e. this is less about "ad" advertisements but more about e.g. doctors having flyers better informing about what is possible/legal in the waiting room and similar.
Like before you basically had to "somehow magically know" who could do an abortion as even mentioning it on the doctors (hospitals) website might be counted as advertisement.